- (1.) THIS revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionists, is directed against the order of Sessions passed in revisional jurisdiction setting aside the order accepting the closure report of the prosecution, passed by the Trial Court.
(2.) HEARD on this Revision Petition. An FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC was registered against the revisionists at Police Station Mahila-Thana (South), Jaipur on the complaint of non-petitioner no.2. Upon completion of investigsation of the case, the prosecution filed a closure report before the Trial Court, recommending closure of the case as no incriminating evidence was allegedly found against the revisionists. This closure report was accepted by the Trial Court under its order dated 4.10.2007 after hearing the complainant on his Protest Petition filed against the closure report. The complainant, aggrieved by the said order, filed a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court, which was allowed vide order dated 3.6.2008, impugned in the present revision, inter alia on the grounds that the trial court before accepting the closure report, ought to have recorded the statements of complainant under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. if a prayer for that was made by him and consequently remanded the case back to the Trial Court for deciding the Protest Petition afresh after hearing the prosecution and the complainant. Aggrieved by this remand order of the Sessions Court, the revisionists have approached this court for setting aside of the said order. The learned counsel for both the parties have been heard for the final disposal of this revision . Record of the court below has also been perused.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionists has argued that the impugned remand order passed by Sessions Court is without jurisdiction and as according to him, the said order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was submitted that the revisionists were deliberately not made party by the complainant in revision before the Sessions Court, therefore, the impugned order passed by the court below without hearing them, should be set aside. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, have argued that the revisionists were neither necessary nor proper parties to the revision preferred by the complainant against the order of the trial court accepting the closure report of the prosecution. It was submitted that till the time cognizance in non-cognizable offences is taken by the concerned Magistrate, the matter is between the court and the prosecution, and till that stage accused have no say in the matter. It was argued that this revision petition filed by the revisionists is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. I have given my anxious consideration to the above rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. On giving my serious thought to the same, I am in complete agreement with the arguments advanced on behalf of the prosecution and the complainant. In the opinion of this court, the accused persons are not required to be heard by the court till the time cognizance in non-cognizable offences is taken by the court against them. At this stage, I would like to note that pursuant to the impugned remand order of the Sessions Court, the Trial Court has already passed a fresh order dated 30.4.2009, after giving hearing to the prosecution and the complainant and has decided to take cognizance for offence under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC against the revisionists. This subsequent order of cognizance passed by Trial Court pursuant to impugned remand order of Sessions Court, is not the subject matter of challenge in present revision and for that reason also, I am of the view that this revision is misconceived and does not lie. In case the revisionists have any grievance against the order of taking cognizance against them, they are entitled to avail legal remedy against such an order in appropriate proceedings before the competent court as per law. ;